Pricing on SSDs keeps coming down and capacity keeps going up. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect high capacity SSDs to be affordable in the next few years.

Sure, but for a launch console SKU? Hell no.

We might see a premium SSD SKU later in the life cycle, but as Blacken00100 said, it might not be a particularly big performance boost in most cases (and the better the devs are, the less boost you'd receive). But at launch? Insanity. If the PS4 or 720 had a $400 and a $700 model available at launch, guess which one is going to be making headlines (and not the good kind).

SSD would be a poor choice. If I'm going to be installing 50Gb Blu-ray games I want space for more than 10 of them. Spinning discs (and the "cloud") are the way to go for storage in the next-gen consoles.

If they really wanted to overachieve on load times they could try to do something clever like include 32-64Gb of SSD built-in and create a hybrid system. Maybe use their "standby" processor to ferry data from the spinner to the SSD in the background. I'm not convinced that's strictly necessary and honestly, probably one of the first places I'd look to cut to keep unit costs down.

I can get behind a "must install" platform for the next XBox, assuming that they do two things successfully: they have to make sure that the install process isn't annoying (I don't want to come home with a game and not be able to play it for better than an hour and they need to make sure that the hard drive is huge: at least a terabyte right out of the gate. If I need to do a full install of a game, I want to be able to keep at least 20 on the system at any given time.

This seems like it combines the worst of the optical disc model and the worst of the all-digital model, and that doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

I can get behind a "must install" platform for the next XBox, assuming that they do two things successfully: they have to make sure that the install process isn't annoying (I don't want to come home with a game and not be able to play it for better than an hour and they need to make sure that the hard drive is huge: at least a terabyte right out of the gate. If I need to do a full install of a game, I want to be able to keep at least 20 on the system at any given time.

This seems like it combines the worst of the optical disc model and the worst of the all-digital model, and that doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

I would hope that the install would only install the minimum to get the game running, and then progressively install in the background.

I can get behind a "must install" platform for the next XBox, assuming that they do two things successfully: they have to make sure that the install process isn't annoying (I don't want to come home with a game and not be able to play it for better than an hour and they need to make sure that the hard drive is huge: at least a terabyte right out of the gate. If I need to do a full install of a game, I want to be able to keep at least 20 on the system at any given time.

This seems like it combines the worst of the optical disc model and the worst of the all-digital model, and that doesn't give me the warm fuzzies.

Someone mentioned in the comments on the front page article that the system might be smart enough to delete games transparantly to make space. If the system can play while installing (which I think MS had working on the PC around the time Vista was launched) then the only thing you'll notice is that the optical drive is spinning - and hopefully it won't be as loud as the 360 was.

I'd also expect 20 games to fit on a 500gb drive. Games won't suddenly fill up 50gbs each (though some will) - there are plenty of games even at the end of this cycle that are in the 3-5gb range.

edit: beaten by Shape. It's a shame that the Halo2 installer never caught on, it was a neat technology but no doubt patented by someone.

I'd be shocked if the retail price for the high-end model on either system is above $399 (I'm expecting a $299/$399 split, although $349/$399 is plausible as well). If your storage solution costs 50% of the total price of the system the stop, it's over already. I know bulk prices go lower, but regardless, there's no way the BOM will allow for that kind of expense in a single component.

I'd be shocked if the retail price for the high-end model on either system is above $399 (I'm expecting a $299/$399 split, although $349/$399 is plausible as well). If your storage solution costs 50% of the total price of the system the stop, it's over already. I know bulk prices go lower, but regardless, there's no way the BOM will allow for that kind of expense in a single component.

Since I can buy a 64 GB SD card for ~$30 (assuming I don't care about speed), I wouldn't be surprised if the entry-level model came with 64 GB of flash storage. I would consider storage which didn't support several massive games installed at once crippled, but I thought the same thing about the 360 Arcade at launch. Assuming they do a two-tier product line again, they have to have something which differentiates the consoles, and they've spent this gen establishing storage space as just such a differentiator.

Looking at the rumored specs there's not much else that could differentiate. MS initially started with the Core, not Arcade, which had NO storage, but if I remember was otherwise identical. Sony had the 20/60 GB PS3, with the lower end lacking HDMI as well as the smaller HD, but if I recall that was the only real difference. Nintendo added their 10% off digital purchases plus a free game with the Wii U, but again not much differentiation. MS and Nintendo also used colors to differentiate their systems (white=lower end, black=higher), but point remains. If MS truly will have no off-disc play and require Kinect and always-on internet, I don't see much room to add additional features to the basic hardware. Just different colors, more storage, maybe a better controls (does MS still differentiate the better controller?). Or they might have just one SKU that's either subsidized by Live or not.

Anyway, I do think that total BOM won't pass $200 at most, so keep that in mind when considering what's "reasonable" for costs.

I doubt they will be using 3.5" drives. And I don't know how much of a discount you'd get buying in quantity, but $190 is probably 5-10x their budget for a drive in these things.

++. Keep in mind that at launch in 2005, the Premium unit had a 20GB hard drive in the 360. While I am sure storage space will be more of a priority, they are certainly not going to get spendy on this component, since it it one of if not the easiest to upgrade throughout the life of the console. I would much rather have a small-ish HDD to start but more RAM, since adding RAM can't happen (or won't help games anyway) later in the life cycle. Plus, if they allow you to swap it (a big if admittedly) it doesn't matter much what size they start you with.

I'd be shocked if the retail price for the high-end model on either system is above $399 (I'm expecting a $299/$399 split, although $349/$399 is plausible as well). If your storage solution costs 50% of the total price of the system the stop, it's over already. I know bulk prices go lower, but regardless, there's no way the BOM will allow for that kind of expense in a single component.

I'd be shocked if there was a unit available for less than $399 at launch.

Control Group wrote:

Since I can buy a 64 GB SD card for ~$30 (assuming I don't care about speed), I wouldn't be surprised if the entry-level model came with 64 GB of flash storage. I would consider storage which didn't support several massive games installed at once crippled, but I thought the same thing about the 360 Arcade at launch. Assuming they do a two-tier product line again, they have to have something which differentiates the consoles, and they've spent this gen establishing storage space as just such a differentiator.

This literally cannot happen with the next Xbox. Every game will install to the hard drive. Games cannot play fromt he optical disc. After formatting, a 64GB option would hold what? Two or three retail games?

No. Both of these systems will use laptop drives and the devkit targets are at 500GB for both systems. Hard drive sizes won't be announced until E3 and are a moving target until they have to actually start manufacturing units. With the way price floors are going on hard drives right now, I think there's a decent chance at 750 GB drives with a really outside shot at 1 TB drives.

This literally cannot happen with the next Xbox. Every game will install to the hard drive. Games cannot play fromt he optical disc. After formatting, a 64GB option would hold what? Two or three retail games?

There are rumors that games would be able to be played "instantly" after installing, removing the need to install more than one game at a time. You stick the disc in, it erases the content from the last game you played (obviously user data and downloaded data would be retained on a separate drive), installs the new game as you're running it.

For that, a small 64GB SSD would be perfect, and it actually is in-line with how a lot of people use PCs today (small SSD for OS/game installs, large media files on slower, larger HDD).

If developers have the assurance of a high I/O data transfer, I imagine it would be very beneficial.

I think even 64 GB of flash that's fast enough to actually be of benefit is probably going to be too expensive for them.

I could see them going with a low-end model with some amount of slow flash instead of a hard drive just to differentiate, though I don't think that would be a good decision for them since they clearly have an interest in people having enough storage to buy stuff through their digital content stores.

I think even 64 GB of flash that's fast enough to actually be of benefit is probably going to be too expensive for them.

64GB MLC flash SSD with a current-gen controller, bought in bulk is in the $45-50 range right now for 10000x purchases. I imagine Microsoft could place an order that works out to half that.

It's entirely reasonable, and considering storage is going to be a key factor in the eventual demise of optical media, I wouldn't be surprised if they "splurged", especially since they're going with lower-cost CPU/GPU components. If anyone thought that was going to translate into a console price reduction, they're probably wrong.

I see nothing below $399, and every model shipping with a small amount of high I/O flash-based storage in addition to a moderately-sized HDD (think in the 320GB range), and at least one controller.

They could also debut with an SSHD. I find that an interesting concept.

Since I can buy a 64 GB SD card for ~$30 (assuming I don't care about speed), I wouldn't be surprised if the entry-level model came with 64 GB of flash storage. I would consider storage which didn't support several massive games installed at once crippled, but I thought the same thing about the 360 Arcade at launch. Assuming they do a two-tier product line again, they have to have something which differentiates the consoles, and they've spent this gen establishing storage space as just such a differentiator.

This literally cannot happen with the next Xbox. Every game will install to the hard drive. Games cannot play fromt he optical disc. After formatting, a 64GB option would hold what? Two or three retail games?

These two statements don't fit together. It literally could happen, but you'd only be able to have two or three games installed at a time. Which is the same situation you faced with a 20 GB HDD in the PS3 and games like MGS4.

No. Both of these systems will use laptop drives and the devkit targets are at 500GB for both systems. Hard drive sizes won't be announced until E3 and are a moving target until they have to actually start manufacturing units. With the way price floors are going on hard drives right now, I think there's a decent chance at 750 GB drives with a really outside shot at 1 TB drives.

That said, if the devkit targets 500 GB, then it seems a good bet that every console will have at least 500 GB.

HappyBunny wrote:

I think even 64 GB of flash that's fast enough to actually be of benefit is probably going to be too expensive for them.

I could see them going with a low-end model with some amount of slow flash instead of a hard drive just to differentiate, though I don't think that would be a good decision for them since they clearly have an interest in people having enough storage to buy stuff through their digital content stores.

Yep, performance-enhancing flash storage seems unlikely. But if the benefit isn't intended to be speed, but marketing, I don't know how you can differentiate two tiers on storage without using flash. You can't buy a small enough HDD to make a compelling bullet point these days.

Whether it's a good decision, I don't know. When the Core (not the Arcade; thanks to ChrisFOM for correcting me on that) shipped, I thought the same thing. When the Arcade shipped (which has 4 GB of flash, yes?), I still thought the same thing, but the differentiation to hit a lower price point obviously seemed worth it to MS.

I think even 64 GB of flash that's fast enough to actually be of benefit is probably going to be too expensive for them.

64GB MLC flash SSD with a current-gen controller, bought in bulk is in the $45-50 range right now for 10000x purchases. I imagine Microsoft could place an order that works out to half that.

Even at $25, that still strikes me as expensive when put in combination with a hard drive. I think the perceived benefit is sort of questionable (especially if devs wouldn't be able to rely 100% on loading from flash) compared to using that budget on other parts of the system or reducing their losses on the units.

Bargeral wrote:

If they have a hard drive and mandatory install and I still need to put in a disk every time I play, i am going to cry.

Unless they have a way to lock disks to accounts, I have a hard time imagining them not having a disk-present requirement. I don't think they could get away with having a feature which easily and transparently allows you to keep playing a game after you give back/return/sell the disk.

Control Group wrote:

Yep, performance-enhancing flash storage seems unlikely. But if the benefit isn't intended to be speed, but marketing, I don't know how you can differentiate two tiers on storage without using flash. You can't buy a small enough HDD to make a compelling bullet point these days.

Whether it's a good decision, I don't know. When the Core (not the Arcade; thanks to ChrisFOM for correcting me on that) shipped, I thought the same thing. When the Arcade shipped (which has 4 GB of flash, yes?), I still thought the same thing, but the differentiation to hit a lower price point obviously seemed worth it to MS.

Yeah I think the question of what they would do in order to have price segmentation is the biggest unknown. They were willing to sacrifice storage for segmentation on the 360, but we are living in a very different world today. The ability to sell you digital content and services is a key part of the business model now, selling units which are severely restricted in that way doesn't seem good from a product strategy point of view.

I think it's more likely that they will distinguish via services in some way. Maybe the expensive model comes with extra services (eg, 2 years of Live), or they have a subscription-based subsidy to allow for a lower up-front cost, or something.

I think the perceived benefit is sort of questionable (especially if devs wouldn't be able to rely 100% on loading from flash) compared to using that budget on other parts of the system or reducing their losses on the units.

Of course there would be a guarantee -- otherwise, there'd be no real point.

What is (usually) one of the biggest complaints from console owners on day-to-day usage? Loading times. An SSD reduces or eliminates that drastically.

What is (usually) one of the biggest complaints from console owners on day-to-day usage? Loading times. An SSD reduces or eliminates that drastically.

...or an assload of ram. Makes far more sense for the longevity of the platform to give it more ram than just sticking in a small SSD cache. There are many ways to hide loading times, especially when you have lots of ram and a 8-core CPU.

I think the perceived benefit is sort of questionable (especially if devs wouldn't be able to rely 100% on loading from flash) compared to using that budget on other parts of the system or reducing their losses on the units.

Of course there would be a guarantee -- otherwise, there'd be no real point.

What is (usually) one of the biggest complaints from console owners on day-to-day usage? Loading times. An SSD reduces or eliminates that drastically.

If you have a small SSD acting as cache for the larger disk, it's going to be hard to guarantee that the game you are currently playing is always available on the SSD.

Loading times are an annoyance, but other aspects of the hardware have more impact on the longevity of the platform.

I think the perceived benefit is sort of questionable (especially if devs wouldn't be able to rely 100% on loading from flash) compared to using that budget on other parts of the system or reducing their losses on the units.

Of course there would be a guarantee -- otherwise, there'd be no real point.

What is (usually) one of the biggest complaints from console owners on day-to-day usage? Loading times. An SSD reduces or eliminates that drastically.

Loading times from an optical disc can only be optimized so much. Loading times from a HDD can be optimized far more. Consider the first two Halos. They didn't need an SSD to have nearly zero load times. A bit better streaming engine and more RAM and they would have had zero.

Load times on an HDD install are about the streaming engine, how much you can prefetch to RAM and whether or not you can organize the data on the disc to minimize seek times (which they very well may be able to).

I think the perceived benefit is sort of questionable (especially if devs wouldn't be able to rely 100% on loading from flash) compared to using that budget on other parts of the system or reducing their losses on the units.

Of course there would be a guarantee -- otherwise, there'd be no real point.

What is (usually) one of the biggest complaints from console owners on day-to-day usage? Loading times. An SSD reduces or eliminates that drastically.

If you have a small SSD acting as cache for the larger disk, it's going to be hard to guarantee that the game you are currently playing is always available on the SSD.

For a general purpose OS? Maybe. For a console? Not so much.

A general purpose OS can't pre-emptively cache items very effectively because it has no guarantees about what files are going to be needed next. A game, on the other hand, can include a manifest of what files it is going to need cached when run and the console OS can pre-cache those file.

It's not like an SSD eliminates loads. It speeds up reading from disk but that's not the only thing that takes time when loading. PC games with fast SSDs still have loading screens all over the place.

Edit: And just to be clear I'm not saying an SSD would be of no value in these systems. I'm just saying that it's really not obvious it would be the best use of that budget in such a cost-constrained environment.

Consider the first two Halos. They didn't need an SSD to have nearly zero load times.

They had plenty of loading screens. All those times Cortana was talking to you and you couldn't skip it? Loading the next area in the background.

Any other game it would have been: Loading screen -> cutscene delivering information -> gameplay. Halo it was: cutscene delivering information -> gameplay. That's the entire point of a streaming engine, they can continue to keep elements of the game in motion (whether you're actually playing during those segments or not is determined by how they're trying to deliver the story) while simultaneously loading the next area in the background. It only becomes a "loading screen" if you decide you just want to forget about the story and move on to the next part of gameplay. To which I would ask you why you're playing a story centric game in the first place?

Beyond that in the intervening ten years streaming technology has come much further than it was back then. Even on a HDD Skyrim needs no loading screens until you're moving between an exterior and an interior (that's an engine limitation though). Pretty much every open-world game lacks loading screens. Pop-in is an issue, but it's one that's not caused by the disc access so much as it is having limited RAM and being unable to do a significant amount of look-ahead precaching.

Game developers have significantly more control over the hardware on consoles than they do on general purpose PCs. They also have a fixed target and know exactly how the system will perform at any given point in time. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that extends down to the hard disk as well. If the system were able to guarantee (and there's little reason that it wouldn't be able to short of not having enough space) a game's install will go into contiguous space then the the assets could be optimized into that space in such a way as to minimize seek times (exactly the same as is done on the shiny discs now).

The cost of an SSD (and, no $1/GB is not "low enough") is still far too high to be an option for the next gen consoles. Unless they're willing to go ahead and tell people they can only have one, maybe two, games installed at once.

If you want to install an aftermarket SSD (assuming it's an option) go right ahead. I wouldn't be surprised at all if you find out that it brings as little benefit as installing one in the current systems (well, PS3 is the only one you really can do so with) brings.

PCs are doing a lot more than loading a game when, well, loading a game. There's a non-trivial amount of background stuff going on (oversimplification, I know).

A console, on the other hand, could be optimized to load a game nearly instantly.

And to say loading screens are still "all over the place" with PC gaming is disingenuous. My recent SSD upgrade reduced load times in most of my games by a factor of 10 or more, and I'm willing to bet almost none of those are optimized to load from an SSD.

It takes a quick SSD less than a second to load what would take a 6x BD-ROM between five and ten, assuming the drive is idle.

And once again, a 64GB SSD bought in bulk would be well under $1/GB -- it would be a little under half that.

I'm not saying it's an imperative that the next Xbox have an SSD, but I can't think of a single better place to upgrade a current-gen console, assuming developers can code for it specifically. The difference between an SSD and a traditional HDD in a computer is easily the single-best upgrade anyone can make from a general usability standpoint, and to claim otherwise is almost willful ignorance.

I'm not saying it's an imperative that the next Xbox have an SSD, but I can't think of a single better place to upgrade a current-gen console, assuming developers can code for it specifically.

I can: RAM. Again, an engine that's capable of doing aggressive precaching streaming and placing those assets in RAM will render the difference between disk types completely moot. Even though graphics are going to improve that 8GB of RAM that both next-gen systems will/are rumored to have will probably never get filled by the assets currently in use on screen. Yes, there's a loss due to system overhead (though lower than on a general purpose PC) and the rumors indicate that the next Xbox will be the big loser on this front with a significant chunk of RAM allocated to the system.

Even in games like Skyrim that do see a boost when using an SSD on a PS3 that's mostly due to the game using the HDD as the precache location. On the next Xbox and PS4 the RAM would be the precache location.

What you will get for your money is improved install and loading times on a great many games - but not all - and in key titles that really hammer the hard drive, there may well be some performance improvements, but not enough to justify the expense, unless you really, really like Rage. Upgrade your laptop with an SSD and that's where you'll really find value - the difference in running an OS, apps and a browser with a solid state drive is phenomenal when compared to a standard HDD.

Quote:

The difference between an SSD and a traditional HDD in a computer is easily the single-best upgrade anyone can make from a general usability standpoint, and to claim otherwise is almost willful ignorance.

To compare between a general purpose PC and a console and expect things to track identically is what I consider "willful ignorance". The benefits of an SSD at prices that are 4-5x the cost/GB of a traditional HDD simply doesn't allow an SSD in a console to make sense. All of the benefits you've described can be rendered completely moot by the system's and game engine's design. There are entire genres today that have zero loading screens (beyond the initial load and if you think increasing the cost of the component by 4x/GB for a quarter of the space just to decrease that load makes sense you're out of your mind) and only have to deal with pop-in because of limited RAM. That limited RAM situation is not going to exist in the next generation so those games would be able to have their cake and eat it too. With the right technology in place, even games that have to do full level swaps would be able to reduce or eliminate the load screens simply by performing the next level's load while the current one is still in memory.

All of this is game centric discussion (mostly driven by the dubious claims of benefit) and is completely ignoring the fact that these are no longer just gaming devices. Both Sony and Microsoft have a lot of stuff they want you to buy. Movies, music, game DLC and more! They're not going to increase the component cost in order to gimp their ability to have you buy and download all of the other stuff they want you to buy? A 64GB drive as the "low tier option". Not gonna happen. I would be completely, heart-attack level, shocked if the lowest end system had less than a 500GB HDD.

And to say loading screens are still "all over the place" with PC gaming is disingenuous. My recent SSD upgrade reduced load times in most of my games by a factor of 10 or more, and I'm willing to bet almost none of those are optimized to load from an SSD.

I have an SSD also and while load times are certainly faster they are still there in every single game I've played.

Quote:

It takes a quick SSD less than a second to load what would take a 6x BD-ROM between five and ten, assuming the drive is idle.

Hard drives are also substantially faster than a 6x BD-ROM, though. SSDs are still faster but the difference is less.

Quote:

And once again, a 64GB SSD bought in bulk would be well under $1/GB -- it would be a little under half that.

I'm not saying it's an imperative that the next Xbox have an SSD, but I can't think of a single better place to upgrade a current-gen console, assuming developers can code for it specifically. The difference between an SSD and a traditional HDD in a computer is easily the single-best upgrade anyone can make from a general usability standpoint, and to claim otherwise is almost willful ignorance.

Really? SSD would be just about the last thing I'd upgrade on current gen console hardware when compared to more modern PC hardware. An SSD is a nice improvement in my PC's overall improvement but I can buy an SSD in addition to the speed of CPU and GPU I want. I am not sure I'd make major sacrifices in the CPU/GPU to get an SSD for gaming purposes.

Again, I'm not saying SSD has no benefit. I think that at this point it's not a smart use of the budget (even $25) for the launch of a new console. I really doubt faster load times would be a significant factor in sales over the lifetime of the console, whereas more RAM, a faster GPU, or a lower retail price at launch definitely would be.

They are trying to hit some target bill of materials for this thing (someone earlier guessed $200, but the exact figure doesn't really matter). Every extra cost on storage requires a sacrifice somewhere else. Also, speed of internal storage is something which can be usefully upgraded in later revisions of the console. You wouldn't get as much benefit as if it were there from the start, but you'd still get improved load times. That's not true for a lot of the other specs it is competing against.

Harumph. Load times? What do you youngin's know o' load times? Now my friend's Sega CD, that had a load time. Put the disc in at sun up and game wouldn't come 'til evenin' on the next day. And the ol' Apple IIes? Shoot, spent the first 20 mins of a half hour class loadin' up Oregon Trail. Reckon we got 5-7 mins of play time, and we were damn grateful for it...

A lot of you seem to be arguing that the SSD would limit the amount of RAM. We're already pretty certain the CPU/GPU is a relatively low-cost part compared to previous generations (the PS4 went this route). There's no way the next Xbox has less than 8GB of RAM, so the flash storage isn't going to eat into that.

The benefits of flash storage go far beyond loading times, by the way. They consume a lot less power, they produce a lot less heat, there are no moving parts -- these all translate into benefits in design/aesthetics (less ventilation needed, maybe an integrated power brick). If the trade-off is a smaller/no traditional HDD (with the ability to upgrade with off-the-shelf equipment) or the lack of a bundled controller, I'd jump all over it.

Anyway, I think it would be prudent for Microsoft to include it. Frankly, I'm still surprised that consoles (which are not "simple machines" anymore) still have such a low price ceiling despite their longevity (8+ years). People will buy their kids a $500 iPad that will be outdated in 2, but they're not willing to spend that on a console that everyone can benefit from?